@beetlemania
I do remember PMing a couple AG members about my specifics after I posted about my experiences. Were you one?
All your thoughts are well-taken. I perhaps wasn't clear on a couple points you expounded on. Thiel's 1uF bright yellow film bypass caps I didn't touch. I chose the 250V ESA caps for size to fit in the existing XO space for the prior caps.
At the time, at least with the suppliers I looked at, the ESA wasn't available in a 13uF, so I piggybacked a 3uF with a 10uF. The 27uF was stocked. So I never considered assembling what I could to do away with the existing 1uF film bypasses and go to 14 and 28 -- which would likely have required using different 1uF bypasses as ESA wasn't available in 4 or 28uF. I honestly haven't investigated other caps that might work in the XO since then, and I'm sure what you used are a result of deeper research and wider availability of good XO caps since my 2011 upgrade.
What I referred to as ' bypasses' are 10nF, the Vishay-Roderstein MKP-1837 that Humboldt Homemade Hifi (??) recommended for every XO cap application.
My audio friends at the time recommended changing out the XO resistors too, and I promised I would do on my second round, which hasn't yet happened :-(
Can I attach a picture to my posts, or only via a weblink to a photo-sharing cloud service? |
@sdecker
FWIW, the CS2.4SE did away with the 1 uF bypasses on the coax feeds, ie, full 14 and 28 uF in single caps rather than 13+1 and 27+1. I am aware of a third-hand report that a 1 uF bypass can have a deleterious effect on SQ (supposedly better to go either higher or lower values for bypass caps). I don't have any information on whether this is related to Jim Thiel's decision to do away with the bypasses. But, clearly, he preferred the sound of 14 and 28 uF Clarity SAs over the original 13+1 and 27+1. CSS apparently has 14 and 28 uF SAs available although the ESA are supposed to be a step up from SA.
My modded boards have 14 and 28 uF values in single Clarity CSAs, the 14 uF bypassed with a 0.1 uF Multicap RTX and the 28 uF bypassed with a 0.22 Multicap RTX. The bypasses improved the "jump factor" and added, maybe, a smidge of resolution.
Buying these parts from a retailer, I would probably get 10+3.9 uF (and a 0.1 bypass) and 18+10 in 630 volt Clarity. Maybe CSA for the bigger value and CMR for the smaller value (for maximum SQ)
or all CSA (to save money and space). Jantzen Alumen is said to mix well with Clarity, also.
Regardless, I highly recommend replacing the 2.4 resistors with Mills MRA-12s. You can replace the sandcasts on all boards for about $100. Money well spent. Sonic Craft carries all the correct 2.4 values although you have to mix and match from among the older Mills and newer Vishay-Mills.
Anyhow, thanks for posting about your ESA upgrade a few years back. That gave me courage to try my own mods - and I'm super happy with how it turned out.
|
Not to turn this into a ss vs tube discussion, just sharing my opinion. |
dsper - you are ahead of me as well on your Thiel/digital journey. Have you thought about a DAC with tube based output? Also, if you haven't, check out the "taming digital glare" thread and think about all the possible ancillary improvements like power supplies, conditioners, cabling, etc, many believe this all makes a difference with digital and although I have a ways to go, so far I agree. Also agree with prof's comments above re continuing to recheck speaker placement, including tilt. Finally, and there are many on this thread who have better more experienced ears than me, but from what I have heard in my journey so far, "live" comes from tube based amplification. |
brayeagle - thanks for the links to the iconclast cables. I went and spent some time there. The thing I found most interesting was their claim that "time of arrival" was the missing critical factor, and the main driver behind their decision on how to construct. Way back in the 80's-90's Monster Cable introduced their M1000 series (and later similarly constructed M400's) using three layers of differing wire and construction, with the claim that this equalized "time of arrival".
I tested the early M1000's against a few other cables (can't remember which ones) in the same price range and the M1000's beat them hands down. I loaded up on used M1000's and M400's over the next decade and have used them ever since, with results that reveal every iota of change in gear behind them. Before you rush out to buy any, however, let me add that their cable construction was shoddy and by now probably 50% of the RCA plugs have had to be replaced. And since the cables are thick this is not always easy.
|
For those 2.7 fans or owners here’s an old, obscure review of the Thiel 2.7s in a Chinese audio magazine: https://review.u-audio.com.tw/reviewdetail.asp?reviewid=628Will require googletranslate. Though I found using the Chrome browser, which offers automatic translation, worked very well. There were very few reviews of the 2.7 (TAS, Secrets Of Home Theater, and an italian one), so finding another is fun. I love the finish on that pair in the review! Looks like the same pair, possibly, as the one sent to Secrets. |
As soon as the 2.4SE came out advertising its improved crossover. Thiel supplied me with the XO schematic and that their auditioning chose the Clarity Cap SA. I went to PartsConnexion and went up one step to the ESA model, matched pairs, with paralleled bypass caps. Had to use a 10+3 uF paralleled from their stock rather than a custom-made 13uF cap Thiel custom-sourced. No other changes to XO (yet?).
It was a quick one-man DIY. Decades as a working EE made this straightforward, if tight quarters.
Despite the break-in time, it was clear the tightly-matched cap tolerances improved the image focus, and a smidge more transparency throughout the upper frequencies. At this level of hifi, this was great bang for the $135 buck.
I'll add that having both coaxes rebuilt from the ground up at the same time by Rob Gillum post-Thiel collapse was similar to the upgraded, matched-pair Clarity caps, and also improved image focus and transparency a smidge. But probably moreso because I have so many zillion hours listening to these speakers in the same good acoustic with mostly the same components and cables...
Do you "share my sentiments" because you've *heard* with your own ears that the 2.4 doesn't soundstage quite as well as the 2.3?
|
sdecker
Good to see you again. I, too, share your sentiments w/ the CS 2.4 model.
Pretty cool aspect regarding upgrading via SE Clarity Cap. Did you incorporate any other change(s) to the cross-over (XO)?
Was this a DIY project? Or, did another speaker tech assist?
Happy Listening! |
Andy2, I’m assuming you mistyped, because a high-pass filter will attenuate the *low* frequencies more than the highs!
OK, I was high on weeds :-)
But the more ’open’ sound without grilles IMO is as much the lack of an acoustic obstruction between you and the tweeter as it is a slight (relative) exaggeration of the highs.
I suppose that is a valid point. I'll let others "bring it on" as Tom will probably have some say to that :-) |
solobone, I’d really like to put the 2.7 next to my 2.4. I’ve heard 2.4 side-by-side with 3.7, and obviously way too much of 2.3 vs 2.4...
cascadesphil, mine are late-production 2.3s, but my understanding of the changes to the coax wouldn’t affect the soundstaging I’m noticing as a baffle change between 2.3 and 2.4.
Andy2, I’m assuming you mistyped, because a high-pass filter will attenuate the *low* frequencies more than the highs!
I’ve seen a number of frequency plots over the years of grilles on vs off for a variety of speakers, and my memory is they nearly always show some degree of attenuation, ideally just the top octave, but sometimes they have funky and likely unintentional irregularities at much lower frequencies. As the grille rolloff seems < a 1st-order XO I don’t see why some modest XO tweaks couldn’t flatten out the response by a dB or less in the tweeter’s passband. If you know your XO topology to begin with.
But the more ’open’ sound without grilles IMO is as much the lack of an acoustic obstruction between you and the tweeter as it is a slight (relative) exaggeration of the highs.
|
For some reasons, Tom reminds me of this. Oh well maybe I’ll use the stereo illusions ... But I’ll take my gloves off at the challenge. https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNjhiMjk1YWYtMjgyYy00YTFhLTk0NTMtN2Q5MDZjMWEyYWI1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@._V1_.jpg It may have to do with the filtering affect of the grille. In a linear system, every frequency passes through the system will only be affected by a constant value, either a gain or an attenuation, which will be applied to all frequencies all equally. This would be ideal or at least preferable. My System Theory 101 is a bit rusty, and I am not sure if a filter can be called a "Linear Time Invariant" (I am pretty sure about the Time Invariant but not sure about the Linear part), but I am pretty sure any filter will affect the phase of a signal and not just the amplitude. In this sense, a grille will act as a filter, a high pass filter albeit a mechanical one, because it will attenuate the high frequencies more than the low frequencies, and just like any filter, therefore introducing a phase shift at the high frequencies. Therefore the attenuation affect of the grille is not a "constant", and probably therefore one cannot be compensated by a "fix" amount on the treble to counteract the variable attenuation of the grille. And I suppose the phase shift introduced by the grille at high frequencies is what affects the "openess" of the sound that I notice. I suppose one could match the treble response to counteract perfectly to the frequencies response of the grille, but that’s probably very difficult and probably not worth the trouble. It’s probably a lot easier to listen just with the grille off :-) Gloves put back. |
Owned 2.3s and helped deliver a bunch of 2.4s. At one point, they changed the tweeter in the 2.3 (helped replace a blown one in one speaker and had to replace the other to match). From memory (long time), the new one might have been vented in the back of the driver. The 2.4s are clearly much smoother and not as harsh when driven a bit hard. |
Regarding the differences between the 2.3 and 2.4.
I would really like to put the 2.3 next to the 2.4 next to the 2.7 and listen to the difference. I have 1.6, 2.7, and 3.6 and enjoy them all immensely however have not had the opportunity to hear the same line side by side. |
If anyone is interested there are a pair of 2.2's in black at Hawthorne Stereo in Seattle. One of the woofers shows evidence of re-gluing the surround. The passive radiators show signs of delamination as well. |
I hope to hear discussion about sdecker's observations. I have heard neither speaker, but share his thoughts. Bring it on, please.
|
While you're on the subject of grilles, I'll hop in this forum for the first time. I've been lurking on it for a month or two but haven't read all 143 pages! I've been on Audiogon forever, but haven't done many transactions or forums here in the past decade. I have owned 2.3s since 2002 and 2.4s since 2006, probably one of the first owners to install the SE capacitor upgrade, though going to a higher-spec Clarity Cap.
What has always 'baffled' me is the 2.4 seemingly putting form over function by recessing the baffle with sharp edges all around for the magnetic grille cutout, and the grille itself having metal discontinuities around the perimeter of the coax. The 2.3 coax is mounted in a modest waveguide and the entire baffle back to the sides of the cabinet is a smooth rounded surface with zero discontinuities. The grille is a sock stretched tight over this that has no effect on diffraction.
With the 2.3 and 2.4 side-by-side, with the right source material, the 2.3 always throws a more-effortless and dimensional soundstage. After years of listening in the same acoustic and much the same equipment, and with listening material that has enough soundstage information, this has always been consistently repeatable. I can only believe the visibly far-less diffraction off the 2.3 baffle is why.
(With either speaker pair, I always listen with the grilles on and perhaps 5 degrees of toe-in in an optimal acoustic for these speakers)
I use my 2.4s 95% of the time because they're better than the 2.3 in every other respect, and their soundstaging is still 'sufficient.' Poor Gary Dayton had to field this question from me at least once after I got my new 2.4s side-by-side with my existing 2.3s. But the evidence here is still clear and the question remains, how did the 2.4's multiple baffle edges and discontinuities not offend Jim Thiel's fundamental design goals? And make it past all the factory listening tests to confirm the 2.4 was to be an improvement on every aspect of the 2.3?
|
Fabric, even polyester made to be sonically transparent, does have multiple effects, as you say. Many Thiel models use the grille frame to fill the cabinet corner with a rounded continuation of the baffle round-over and as such that frame is an important component of the wave launch. And, as I mentioned, the treble reduction of the fabric is part of the intended balance. But many audiophiles dislike grille fabric. Many have gotten good results by removing the fabric from the frame and using the frame as intended for diffraction control. Pointing the speakers straight ahead puts the listener a little off-axis to reduce high frequency beaming. Thiels are designed for straight-ahead pointing, but it seems a majority toes them in, which puts too much energy in the brightness region. The straight-ahead orientation often requires wall treatment at the first reflection point, which solves many imaging issues, while keeping a flat on-axis and power response.
|
Thank you Tom. The cabinet seems to be the most time consuming part of making a speaker at least in the DIY world. I suppose with CNC equipment then maybe the process will be much faster. Personally for me the cabinet takes about 70% of the time and the rest for the electronics. But even with CNC, I suspect the cabinets will always be the most expensive part of making a speaker, especially with the high end speakers. One of the most understated part of Thiel is in their cabinetry in term of being "furniture friendly" as most people usually talk of Thiel as just "first order coherent". I’ve assumed (or maybe read somewhere) that Thiel designed their speakers to be used with the grills on (as in the sonic effects of the grill were accounted for in the design). I used to listen with the grill off and I notice the upper frequencies were a bit more "open". Also just like most first order design, the sound balance of the Thiel is a bit sensitive to "toe in". I listen with the speakers pointing straight forward. With "toe in", the upper frequencies were slightly more pronounce than I would like. I wonder if the grill only affects the sound pressure to the affect of about "1dB" as Tom said. It’s possible that the grill also affect the "resolution" as well and ultimately the "openess" of the sound. My thinking is that the grill may affect more than just "1dB" less. That is even if you fine tune the treble energy to account for the "1dB", it still may not be the same as with "grill off". There have been some claims with respect to "audible transparent" cloth but I doubt it though, especially where a system has a lot of resolution that will high-light any characteristic of the equipment chain. |
Prof - Yes, we assumed grilles to be on, which affects final frequency balance, knocking the upper octaves down perhaps 1dB. Some grille frames are also inherent to diffraction management. Some reviewers and individuals have used them bare and then take pot-shots at that extra 1dB of treble and/or diffraction effects which they have directly caused by mis-use of the product. End of rant. Good to see you here.
Tom
|
tomthiel,
I’ve assumed (or maybe read somewhere) that Thiel designed their speakers to be used with the grills on (as in the sonic effects of the grill were accounted for in the design).
Is that correct?
I’ve always listened with grills on, and it seems to be the norm for Thiel speakers from what I’ve seen.
|
Andy - I'll try to fill in some blanks. And this piece of history may interest some of you.The 3-D baffle is a rather difficult item to produce one-off. The 03 had a flat baffle and the 03a added wool felt around the drivers which worked very well, but seemed somewhat inelegant with our high-WAF furniture-presentation. So I devised the contoured wave-launch baffle which, I believe, was unique at the time. The CS3 (1983) was made by hand, assisted with power tools. First the laminated baffle was beveled on a tablesaw to remove excess waste. 45° across the top and 45° x perhaps 15° up the sides. The CS3 was then shaped with a hand-plane and random orbit sanders to its final contours. The CS3.5 (1986) was contoured with a form tool in an inverted router as follows. The excess waste was removed by tablesaw just like the CS3, then the CS3.5 was machined on an inverted pin router: fixtured in a jig, back-side up, where the jig interfaced with an overhead pin centered on the underslung form tool, which was an 8" diameter arc to shape the rounded edges. That semi-manual method produced the early 3.5s. Later, that forming operation was moved to the Computer Numeric Control Router to the great relief of all. The CS2.2 (1990) used the same tool, but was designed and manufactured entirely for CNC Router.
You might consider the CS3 method of table-sawing the compound angles on the sides and the straight 45° across the top and then shaping with a hand plane, sander and an arc pattern to guide you. Divots or other errors can be filled with body putty (Bondo); and paint covers a multitude of sins. You might also know a CNC job shop to carve it, probably with a ball-end mill. You then remove the swarf with a sander. Or take the Avalon (etc.) approach and make facets without the smooth arcs. I think I would do that and cover the facets with F11 wool felt to absorb the migrating launch wave. I am presently having great fun with felt on the curves and believe that felt on facets would be a good way ahead.
Have fun. Keep us posted.
|
Maybe if Tom could help with this.
I was wondering how the baffle of the Thiel speakers are manufactured? The curved baffle geometry probably presents some difficulties. If I were to do it by hands, I probably would use a combination of a planar and chisel and probably would take me a few weekends, but I assume that would probably be too time consuming and would cost a lot of time and money as well in actual production.
I suppose if you were to mass produce something like that, you could come up with a machine that either can do the entire baffle, or most of it that will reduce most of the manual labor. |
jeffvegas
Welcome! Good to see you here. Keep us posted if you decide to purchase a pair of Thiel loudspeakers.
Happy Listening! |
Correction: I meant the 5 has sealed bass |
Asturias - I am spitballing for thoughts on cs5i vs cs7. Never heard direct comparison. 5i has older drivers, but with similar motor technologies to 7s. 5 has no coax, so vertical loving is greater. Baffles are similar tech, but 7s are thicker and quieter. 5 has big bucket brigade delays on mid ranges. I haven’t seen 7 schematic, so don’t know its timing mechanism. Generally newer models are superior to older. I imagine the 7 specs better.
BUT the 7 has a sealed bass to under 20 Hz which I know to be glorious IF you can drive it. I consider the 5 as a prime upgrade candidate due to direct upgrades with clear advantages. Physical time alignment is low hanging fruit and biamp capability lessens impedance stress. |
Yes! I'm using Rowland's best: PSU, DAC & Corus Pre with an enhanced Spectron Class D Musician II Signature amp. Bybee iQSE V2s for atmosphere treatment and PPT everywhere else. SR power cables and conditioners, Analysis Plus best interconnects and loudspeaker cables... The 7.2's are so incredibly coherent, transparent, tonally spot on and just plain signing! Happy listening! |
Old Rowland gear and Thiels sound great. The Rowland giving some body to the sound through the mids. Thiels like current and the ROWLANDS will do a better job at that than a tube amp. Everyone is spot on with wiring. You can hear night and day what different speaker cable and IC's sound like. You really have to play around with several types to find the ones you particularly like the best. Almost like a tone control.
|
|
He actually got the $85k list price speakers used for something like $27k with shipping (that was probably about 15+ years ago). The room was probably about just over 9 feet wide by about 17 feet with metal Boltz LP racks all over. We took out a pair of $12k list B&W retro looking speakers that sounded better in the room. Electronics included the Levinson 33H monoblocks ($20k list) and the Levinson reference preamp of the day ($16k list) and the he had an adjacent bigger room with a TV and a pair of Maggie 3.6s on a side wall (adjacent to the small room with the Dynaudio speakers), which I believe were powered by a De Havilland amp or integrated in the same room as the Dynaudio. When we left my friend said that he would be better off with 7.2s in that room (vs. the Dynaudio). Did other deliveries where the room was an afterthought. Like 2 story glass walls and a wall with a stone fireplace and Thiel 2.3s (which I owned before the 7.2s) and it sounded so bright it hurt my ears. That system was bought totally based on review ratings vs. the person listening carefully or obviously considering the room. |
You might be surprised at how the WAF influences someone willing to part with his money. ;-) ;-) ;-) |
|
"
Thank You for reviving the old CS 7.2/Levinson thread. I would be interested in learning if any of those guys still own the 7.2 loudspeaker?"
Been quite a while since I lived in the DC area and my friend who worked at the store and I did deliveries with. Most of that was the late 1990s through around 2005 (my friend was gone from the store a few years when I sold my 7.2s and got my 3.7s and since he helped me sell my 7.2s the owner let him deliver my 3.7s and took care of him). There's an old Washington Post article (I was not able to find it) from around 15+ years ago about one of the people I was talking about that deals with ultra high end 2-channel systems. His first name was Hugh (last name escapes me at the moment - was a retired Navy pilot - very nice guy) and he was the focus of the article. I think back then he had about $140k at retail into his 2-channel system. Besides being over his place (which I enjoyed), I'd see him at events at the local audio shop. There probably weren't too many of us back then who used to frequent that local shop who owned 7.2s. Back then I think the most expensive speaker I saw in someone's house were these -
https://manofmany.com/tech/audio/dynaudios-evidence-loudspeakers-85000-well-spent Room wasn't a good match (way too small but I understand the customer moved a couple of years later into a bigger place) and he had Levinson 33Hs which I helped install. I always look at used stuff (not that I need anything), particularly local to me and probably one of these days, I'll end up picking up something speaker wise.
|
andy,
Yes that's a fair point. Though I think to a degree.
But there is so much that you can adjust via speaker positioning/room acoustics, especially when we are talking about things like an assertive treble, that it makes sense as a first step before trying to "fix" it with gear that may or may not come close to doing so.
On the other hand, I don't think I'd get exactly what I get from my CJ tube gear vs a solid state amp, strictly from changing speaker positions.
|
cascadesphil
Thank You for reviving the old CS 7.2/Levinson thread. I would be interested in learning if any of those guys still own the 7.2 loudspeaker?
Happy Listening! |
Playing with speaker position and room acoustic will yield differences that swamp what you’d get switching around digital sources.(And btw, I’m not in the camp that says every digital source sounds the same).
That's missing the point though. Every adjustment will have an affect on different aspects of the sound. Speaker position, room, ... will have some specific on the sound, just as cables, DAC will have their own affects that cannot be found in position ... |
dsper
How much of a DYIer are you ?
Would you consider replacing and upgrading the componets in your
amp? If so try replacing the rectifiers with fast and soft recovery ones .
Since the 500 is an older amp it might have fast recovery but not soft ,
I was suprised at the difference they made for around $7 each x 4 .
Rob
|
dsper
Reviewing your original post- the Naim and Mark Levinson are very fine players indeed. Not familiar with the AudioSpace CD8 but find it cool as there are many excellent spinners out there. I too find modern DAC(s) on the clinical side. If you like the sound from Cullen and Synergistic Research, consider, a full loom (interconnects and speaker cables). Keep me posted as you find that perfect balance between cabling and gear.
Happy Listening! |
dsper,
Seems you are way ahead of me on this. I hope you get things going your way.
I had the CS6s way back which were very much like the 7s and I actually found them to be very smooth. Though driving them with Conrad Johnson tube amps helped :-)
|
Hi prof,
Are you sure you have done all you can with speaker position/listening position/acoustics to dial in your speakers before chasing other solutions?
You are asking a fair question. I have added bass traps across the front wall ceiling and down the front wall corners; and have added absorption panels on one side wall where one speaker has to be set within three feet of that side wall. At that time, I also tried to dial in speaker placement. However, I have not revisited speaker placement and room acoustics since I acquired my latest transport and DAC. My problem is that my equipment upgrades since I acquired the CS5's have all been noticeable improvements so I keep wondering what I am "obviously" missing in that regard. Or put another way, perhaps I have lost sight of the room/placement variables. And I have not yet set up my turntable since acquiring the Thiels... Thanks for the advice! Dsper |
prof,
I'd put the 2.7s into that category, also. At their price point I haven't heard anything better.
|
Thanks for the report thielrules!
As I've said so many times, I think the Thiel 3.7s will remain near-SOTA anywhere around their price-point for a long time.
I haven't heard the 7s for ages, but have no doubt they are competitive with (and better than) many of today's excellent speakers.
|
Let me add my impressions to the comparison of the 7.0 and 7.2. we listened to some Michael Jackson songs from thriller album. Rob has all Bryston, the latest CD, pre amp and 28 B3 amps. Not sure about cables. As the room is an office, perhaps 14 x 16 ft without any room treatment, it is fairly alive. Listening to both the 7 sand 7.2, at 85 to 95 dB the immediate impression is the excellent bottom and bass response. Hard to pick a winner as both were astounding. The mid and high is where we there is a difference. The 7.2 is more resolving and given the acoustics more intrusive in the highs whereas the 7 was more balanced all around. When I came home and compared the same music on my 3.5 and 3.7 I would say that the 3.5 has the same character of the 7 but can't compete at the higher spl. The 3.7 can't match the 7 or 7.2 in the bass but easily makes up for it in the mid and highs where the resolution, clarity and balance is unmatched. If anything, how all of these speakers have a great soundstage and draw you into the music makes you forget that the are these differences. I would say love the speakers you have and make them work the best with what you have as far as room and other components.
|
Hi Dsper,
Playing with speaker position and room acoustic will yield differences that swamp what you’d get switching around digital sources.(And btw, I’m not in the camp that says every digital source sounds the same).
You should be able to alter the brightness, image focus, soundstage depth, all sorts of things, by playing with positioning (or perhaps adding some acoustic absorption panels or a diffuser at a problematic reflection point).My left speaker is right near a very reflective tiled fireplace. It can cause some shrill high end so I made a thick velvet cover that I place over that area (on hooks) for listening. Works perfectly to balance the sound.
Are you sure you have done all you can with speaker position/listening position/acoustics to dial in your speakers before chasing other solutions? (Of course if you really want to try those other things, go for it).
Cheers.
|
Oh Boy!
I did not mean to create any controversy about speaker wire or transports! Let me try to explain my last couple of posts.
My Thiel CS5's fell into my lap as a good local deal and started an exploration of how good the CS5's could sound. First, there was a two year process to get to an amp that I felt could power the CS5's without breaking my bank/space. Then I worked on room acoustics but could not tame a shrillness in the treble.
At that point I received some good advice from another CS5 owner regarding ladder DACs. I found a Theta ProBasic III, which eliminated the shrillness and sounded more organic to me.
I was still aiming for that live, nuanced presence so I tried upgrading to a PS Audio PerfectWave transport and was amazed at how the increased detail improved the "aliveness" of the sound.
At the same time, another thread suggested I try higher gauge speaker wire that yielded more detail and an improvement as corroborated by recent postings on this thread.
My transport post was simply trying to elicit advice on how to maximize the sound of the CS5's. I am thinking CS 6 and 7 owners might have cool stuff to share.
The suggestions from bray eagle about Belden Iconoclast cables and vair68robert about Cardas 9.5 stranded litz are both news to me and appreciated!
Thanks for listening,
Dsper
|
tomthiel
Thank You for the field report. Yes, this is a challenging time of year for travel. You are a brave Soul indeed. Hope the rest of your time is well spent prior to returning home.
Happy Listening! |
dsper
Anytime is the right time for Cabling discussion. Wether you wish to persue the DIY route or aftermarket, there is something for everyone. We have a few members of the Panel who enjoy the DIY aspect offering plenty of information in this thread. Equally, there are other members of the Panel who enjoy the aftermarket companies. No right or wrong approaches regarding cabling. Take your time, demo all interests and have fun in process! Good to see you here.
Happy Listening! |
tmsrdg,
I'm not turning the thread in to a cable debate. I don't want to go in to any depth on cables 'n stuff in this thread. That's why I made such a short comment.
But on the subject of merely talking about these things, I believe you have an imbalanced and biased sense of proportion: I simply added my voice to anyone else's opinions on the subject.
Why is, for instance, your opinion to be the default - automatically favored over mine? Why is your experience to be seen as veridical, and a relevant data point, but mine and my experience counts for nothing?
Why is it any less "tedious" to hear a constant throng of "every material sounds different/all cables/tweaks change the sound?" With no counterpoint to it?
This hobby comprises audiophiles who have a range of opinions and experience supporting those opinions. Why should your own version be the default, which can be explicated over and over, yet someone more on the continuum of being skeptical (for good reasons) should just sit down and shuddup?
When someone asks about cables, or in this case particularly about spending money on transports and which server "sounds best," he is sure to get many opinions about how to spend that money. I'm simply adding in one other perspective "you *might* want to consider that you are considering quite a lot of money for something that is controversial and for which the claims can be fairly dubious.*
It was people who added that voice to discussions like this who helped folks like me figure out where allocating my money made the most sense. No one has to do as I do. But it's good to hear other viewpoints, rather than live in an echo-chamber IMO.
BTW, you might consider dialing back the insults ("cognitively challenged" analogy). Doesn't help anything.
Cheers.
|
prof, re your reply to Dsper above: it's getting somewhat tedious to constantly read the same thing from you on cables. We all know how you feel, no need for constant reiteration. It's like saying over and over "I'm cognitively challenged and I expect everyone else to be too!" My wife and I, both professional classical musicians, have done the A-B test with numerous cables, amps, cd players and etc. There has never been any problem whatsoever in identifying different cables selected randomly from a list of say, 6. My wife (or me) selects a cable, the other person closes their eyes, opens them when the system is turned back on, and, no problem identifying the exact cable. Just like there is no problem hearing the difference between the Steinway 12 feet away from our 3.7s and the Thiels themselves. I have to say, thankfully, that's a small difference...
|
@brayeagle , beyond mine as well. |
unsound,
Just under 2K for pair of 8 foot speaker cables. Well beyond my comfort level.
George
|
