As their bass response and dispersion characteristics don't vary that much, I don't think there would be much difference in room adaptability between 2.7's and 3.7's.
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!
13,720 responses Add your response
batmanfan Yup I went from the 3.7s to the 2.7s, not for sonic issues but aesthetic/ergonomic issues. My room is 13' wide x 15 deep (that is at it's deepest point, which is the end of the bay windows behind the listening sofa, so really most of the room is between maybe 12 - 14 feet deep). I have a large room opening to one side of the room, which no doubt helps. The 3.7s worked perfectly in my room, evenly balanced from top to bottom, and disappeared and imaged better than anything I've heard (except my MBL speakers). I actually think I found the 3.7s a bit easier to place for even sound than my 2.7s! The Thiel designs are very well damped and controlled in the bass which I think makes them easier to place and work in smaller rooms than many other speakers. |
Thanks for your comments @tomthiel. I am not familiar with the process of developing speakers so the description you gave of the engineering chamber where speakers were put up with tweeters 10’ above the ground made me imagine the Bat cave with Thiel on pedestals, lol! I learn so much in this thread, thank you everyone. Anyone other thoughts, especially from those who own (or have owned) 3.7s and/or 2.7s regarding the minimum size of a room for a pair of 3.7s? If you do provide dimensions, please let me know what assumptions you’re apply, such as how far into the room the speakers are placed and how loud they are played. Thank you! |
my present work on these products strongly suggests that "neutrality vs musicality" is not necessarily a dichotomy. The assumption that we must sacrifice Articulation / Neutrality / Resolution in order to get "Musicality" is not necessarily so.That is true albeit at a rather high cost. If you were to build low cost speakers, then it's not likely you can get all three- neutrality, resolution and musicality. Depending on the cost you may only get one out of three. And the more you're willing to spend on R&D and manufacturing, the more likely you'll get all three in one package. The Thiel CS2.4 is one of those rare speakers that are close to getting all three. In stock form, it has neutrality and musicality. Its weakness is in the high frequency extension resolution. Based on what others have done, it probably came down to the xover and internal cables, and it seems like if you upgraded the xover and cables, you can get quite good high frequency extension resolution as some have reported. Of course by the same extension, the same would apply to preamps, amplifiers, digital front ends, cables and so on. |
Batmanfan - I was long gone at 3.7 time, so I can only give you a sketch. Rob says nothing had changed since my days. The tonal balance and hard-core engineering was done in the chamber, which was semi-anechoic with previously delineated dimensions, but roughly 20' high x 30' wide x 40' long with the tweeter at 10' above the ground. Outdoor measurements and ground-plane measurements all went in the mix for tonal balance. Listening was done in our built-to-purpose room at 14' high x 22' wide x 34' long (more or less from memory). Big room with furniture, plants and some wall panels. Big enough to support and report on what the product was doing. Smaller rooms, especially approaching cubical and/or with half or double dimensions are more problematic. There are various ratios known to work better than others. A room that sounds good is good. And women tend to feel it wen it's right. Good luck. |
Hi Everyone, 3.7s owners I would like your feedback. What is the minimum size room you think is appropriate for them? I'm not asking for the optimal size, but one whereby if you went any smaller, it significantly damages the ability for the 3.7s to image properly. If you've moved from a 3.7s to 2.7s (I think that includes you Prof if I'm not mistaken), or moved from 2.7s to 3.7s, I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts. I've got a pair of 2.7s and there are a couple of 3.7s on the market that are whetting my appetite. The 2.7s are perfect for my current listening room right now but we're in the process of moving so I'm curious as to what size room I should have to fit a pair of 3.7s appropriately. Not sure the wife agrees with my priority list for the new home though: - Short commute distance to work - Quality schools for the kids - Properly sized listening room for 3.7s... Tom, Curious when Jim was developing the 3.7s did he use a particular room for listening/voicing them? If so, what size was that room? Or was not a part of the equation? Sincerely, Batmanfan |
Prof - my present work on these products strongly suggests that "neutrality vs musicality" is not necessarily a dichotomy. The assumption that we must sacrifice Articulation / Neutrality / Resolution in order to get "Musicality" is not necessarily so. And Unsound's slippery slope is certainly slippery, but perhaps doesn't slope the way we thought. The work I am doing seems to increase A/N/R and increase Musicality by removing some sources of propagation aberration which have plagued Thiel speakers in varying degrees over the decades. Trials in progress. |
Prof - The 2.7 is on my long list. I am gaining experience by taking on older designs with more room for improvement and more urgent end of capacitor life issues. I am learning a lot as I go that will all apply to more recent models such as the 2.7, which I consider at the pinnacle with the 3.7 of Jim's art. I hope to form some sort of organization to implement the design modifications I am creating. But for now, the 2.7 seems stable and respectable as it is. |
The CS1.7 is a different story. Its development was finalized by New Thiel via Mark Mason, formerly of PSB. Shortly after the sale, Steve DeFuria was hired as national sales manager and he contacted me to arrange a consultancy for product/ philosophical/ historical backgrounding for the new owners. The new owners were not interested in the "old perspective" and I was not invited until a couple of executive generations later when I judged all had been lost. The 1.7 was a focus of contention for Steve. The new CEO wanted to call it "Coherent Source", a moniker they had bought. Steve judged that it could not honestly be called such due to its 4th order crossovers and resulting phase distortion. I have read conflicting reports re its slopes, so I don't know where that argument landed. The 1.7 had an upgraded tweeter and a woofer with a star diaphragm. It got some good reviews, but did not get formal reviews from Stereophile or Absolute Sound. I'm guessing it sold very poorly in the confusions of leadership transition. |
The 1.6 was introduced in 2002 and sold approximately 3000 pair in its 10 year run, about the same as the CS1.5 from 1993 to 2002. All 1.6 cabinets, drivers, final assembly and testing was done in Lexington. My #1611-12 pair have Lex crossovers with Axon caps on printed circuit boards. "Late-date"CS1.6s (probably after Jim's death in 2009) had crossovers from FST. I have done considerable investigation with the 1.6. I find it to be quite strong in all respects. My upgrade work has centered on physical elements with electronics review to come later. I am quieting the baffle for surprising increases in delecacy, harmonic detail and spatiality (as also is shown even more-so in the 2.2).I credit this forum for inspiring this exploration -specifically the questions about the Vandersteen baffle-less approach and the comments about being "harsh, aggressive, shouty". In reconstructing the product time-line, I realized that I had effectively dropped out of design evaluation by the time of mid 90s 3.6 finalization; and I would have been the person to explore non-electronic causes of subtle distortions. So, I'm playing catch-up 25 years later. And the results are enlightening on many levels of product performance and life's deeper questions. |
Beetle - thanks for the leads. JA - I'm working on real quantities in the field. Thiel didn't compete well at its lower end. Dealers I knew thought those products made no market sense - they were too radically different from their price peers. In addition to quantities I'm looking into the 1.7 XO. A product announcement by Steve DeFuria (first sales manager of New Thiel, and old friend of mine) says they're 4th order Butterworth, and the Frequency Response Curve shows a 7.5dB fall from 100 to 20K Hz, a somewhat exaggerated Harmon Curve. I can't find reviews on the CS1.7 that show a bank of measurements. |
I'm looking for a pair of 3.5s as well as 1.5s.@tomthiel Hifishark (https://www.hifishark.com/) might be the "best" one-stop online source to check. They appear to be an amalgam of eBay, US Audio Mart, TMR, and other worldwide sources. You can filter results by country. Here are a couple of relevant hits: https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649548973-thiel-cs-15-pair/https://www.ebay.com/itm/143396134741 |
I suggest adding the second pair of posts when modding the XO. Beetle may chime in - he looked in to that with his 2.4 upgrade. My experience with bi-wireable Vandersteens led me to explore this option with my CS2.4s and Tom Thiel encouraged me to try it. Also, the OEM binding posts have brass whereas the Cardas CPBP are rhodium over silver. The OEM hook up wire in my “SE” version was sourced from FST and, based on the parts quality on the FST-sourced boards, I suspected was sub-optimal (those of you with Lexington boards have higher quality parts). I replaced the posts and wire with Cardas and added separate binding posts for the low and high pass boards. I sonically compared single runs of speaker cable from the amp using Cardas copper jumper plates to double runs of identical cables. The biwire configuration consistently sounded more relaxed and liquid. Some songs also sounded a bit more dimensional and clear via biwire. The latter characters are especially subtle but I heard the effect on more than one song. This is not an easy or inexpensive upgrade but certainly worth it for me. The low-hanging fruit, however, is to upgrade the caps and resistors, maybe the coils if you have boards made by FST (it appears that Thiel Audio started using FST shortly after Jim Thiel’s passing). So, start with the XO parts, especially if you’re on a budget. But if you’re insane (like me) and want to squeeze every iota of performance out of your Thiels then dual binding posts should be on the agenda! |
@bighempin I would desolder. Note that Thiel used unleaded solder which has a higher melting point. Your iron/gun should be at least 140 watts. Speaker should be on its back so that the driver can’t fall out and prevents solder from dripping onto the driver. There is enough slack in the wire to access the terminal but not much more. A second pair of hands is very helpful. I did this solo on my 2.4s by setting the driver on a shim above its hole which leaves plenty of room to get at the terminal. It’s not that difficult but you can gain confidence by practicing soldering and unsoldering bare wire. |
Looking for CS1.5s. I've spent a good part of the past year building a lab with measurement equipment, various playback chains, a hot-rod garage of models and accumulating knowledge and ideas. Many pieces of the puzzle are in place, and I have decided to take on the CS1.5 as my first project. It is highly rated, well loved, simple two way, good parts availability, and old enough to need assistance. I'll learn a lot from them to apply to more complex models. 2.2 and 3.6 are next in line. But I don't have any CS1.5s, nor does Rob. So, please know that I am looking for a pair or two as workhorses, in any condition, with or without good drivers. Thanks for any help you can give. |
George - I auditioned the HD600s and the 800s. The 800-S is a big step up due to controlling a resonance at about 8K and the angled circular transducer. As I mentioned, my decision was for alignment with the recording community, not doubting that your electrostatics might sound better. BTW, I see the Audeze cans making serious inroads into high end recording. |
Tom, WoW! 800S cans. They certainly must sound better than my HD 600s. The circular transducer must make a difference. I agree. Everything that sounds coherent via the electrostatics also sounds coherent with my 2.7s. I think the major difference between dynamic and electrostatic cans is in the compliance and mass of the respective transducers. (Thiele-Small parameters: Small signals.) ( I use the HD600s when my "bat-ears" neighbor grouses about my nocturnal listening habits .) George |
Hello fellow Thiel Owners. I have a question for the tinkerers of the group. I bought a soldering iron and I have been practicing soldering and desoldering in preparation for possibly removing the damaged driver from my 3.7s. I have been talking with Rob who suggested I do one of two things, either desolder the terminal connection, or cut the wires as close to the terminal as possible. It seems to me that desoldering would be the preferred method but I am curious which method you would chose. Also, I sent a few questions to Rob and was hoping I could pose the same questions to you guys. Here is what I sent Rob: "I had a few more questions about removing this driver. I bought a soldering iron and I have been watching youtube videos and practicing soldering and desoldering. I think I am ready to give this a try. What is the best way to position the speaker to remove the driver(on its back, on its side, standing up)? Is a desoldering wick the way to go and if so what size would you recommend? Secondly, once I remove the screws and have the driver lose, how much slack is there in the wire connecting it, will I need a second set of hands to hold it while I desolder it? Beyond the soldering iron, what other tools would I need or would you recommend? Any practical tips for a beginner trying to desolder this terminal connection?" Thanks for the help guys. |
George - I've never actually heard electrostatic phones. I use Beyerdynamic 770s live and Sennheiser 800S in the studio-lab. I chose them for high quality neutrality and because many top-notch recording and mastering engineers use them. Of interest is that the handling of stereo signal is different for in-room stereo and in-can binaural playback. Great recordings play well in both environments, but many ordinary recordings do not. It would be fascinating to learn whether that qualifier makes for good playback on Thiel / Vandy speakers. A recording that plays well on both stereo and cans must have its phase-time information intact and refrain from 3-D tricks of the trade. I bet those "proper" recordings would sound right on phase coherent speakers. Anybody know anything about this topic? I'm just surmising. Tom |
Tom, Electrostatic headphones use a very, very thin and low mass membrane, positioned between two stators that are driven by a high voltage signal. (The stators operate push-pull to ensure the membrane reacts in a near simultaneous move to the coming signal. In effect, the membrane reproduces the signal, covering all frequencies fed to it, in a near-instantaneous time. What this means is what you hear (for example) is what the CD spinner/DAC feeds to the headphone does not have the differences in both the reaction time and the physical distances in space that define a normal speaker system. What you hear is essentially what the recording engineer and the manufacturer put onto the CD. I've been using Stax headphones and amplifiers for years to "audition" every classical CD in my collection. (now using the 009 and associated amplifier) Yes, an electrostatic can sound thin in the bass - - but very clean and precise, and the higher frequencies can appear bright - - but the accuracy and resolution cannot be beaten by dynamic cans, nor the arrival of complex sounds from my 2.7s. (and, no room effects! :-) :-) :-) ) I use my Thiel 2.7s for musical enjoyment. My Stax for finding out whatinthehell really is on that CD. George |
Prof - the most modern Thiel I have in the HRGarage is the 1.6, which predates your 2.7s by a decade. And I don't hear any of those harsh attributes in it either. There was steady progress made through the years. But the early products could and would often sing sweetly. The positive reviewer experience rarely gives any mention to the complaints some observers proclaim. I'm developing some working models, but still there's a lotta mystery. |
FWIW, I sure don't hear any harshness in my Thiel 2.7s driven by my conrad johnson premier 12 tube amps :-) Not anywhere, not a bit. They are one of the smoothest sounding speakers (at least with this amp combo) that I've ever heard. And the sound is big, rich and lush - not the usual descriptors that have been traditionally associated with Thiel speakers (in the mind of many audiophiles). |
I’ve been thinking about the time/phase coherent and to be honest I’ve been back and forth - it matters, then it matters not like a girl choosing who to marry. One is for money and one is for love lols. A lot of it is more like personal experience than actual reasoning - like marrying. But I think now know who but I need to know if she’s for sure lols. You guys probably thought I was gay right :-) ha ha ha ha ha |
Thosb - the broad brush paints a picture that the select few amps (which you guys end up with) seem to handle the difficult loads, mitigate "the harshness" or otherwise perform well without softening or sweetening the signal. Jim's view was that these are "good amps" which should be used with "good speakers". He tested amps and knew the designers and indeed many of the used our speakers for their design loads. What I hear from the Adcom is somewhat bland / lifeless, grainy and dry. Not bad. Pretty good compared to many, but fairly vanilla compared with better. Regarding dual inputs: I'll recap. We identified dual inputs as a good solution and used it in the CS3. Problems occurred when people used radically different cables for bass and treble and/or bi-amped with differing amps, including unmatched gain. These hassles were unacceptable to Jim, who put tons of energy into matching to within a fractional dB across the spectrum. Kathy polled dealers who thought at our price points life would be much simpler with single inputs. End of that story. But the back story doesn't change. Since the current draw makes many amps misbehave, even if marginally, separating the bass loads from upper loads cleans things up enormously. There is a perceived problem by some that jumpers degrade the sound if you choose to single-input. I don't hear it when using Cardas high purity copper jumper plates, which are affordable and allow the user to substitute with jumper wires if desired. I like vertical bi-amping where one channel drives the woofer and the other channel drives the mid-tweeter. I don't have a good sample, since my amps are pretty good and I only have 1 Adcom stereo. (The second one arrived DOA and I opted for a refund unstead of repair.) I suggest adding the second pair of posts when modding the XO. Beetle may chime in - he looked in to that with his 2.4 upgrade. |
Congrats on the score! And many hours of sweet, happy listening! A few years ago I had picked up the 3.7s and love them. I often gravitate to vintage and good, and paired these with a Bryston amp, and eBay Tom Evans pre-amp. But some of the greatest advancements came from the cabling which, relative to the system, was actually the most cost effective. I first experimented with, then put broadly, the Anticables, from Paul Speltz. At that time, Tidal was offering a section of their website that tested the "can you hear a difference [with lossless format]?" And before the cables, it was random. After the cables (on the same system) I want to say I picked out five out of six. All of this is through Oppo BDP 105D, which is a sweet (but unfortunately discontinued) media server.f Enjoy! |
More good info thanks tom. Can you elaborate on “kind of problems that plague Thiel users” when using the Adcom amp? Would other Thiel models benefit from being modified for dual inputs to allow for vertical biamping, and could (should?) this be done as part of a XO modification? Apologize if this has already been covered in the thread, if so I will go on a search mission, unfortunately withthis format it’s easier to ask than go back and search. |
I bought a pair of AHB-2s about a year ago and am thrilled. I specifically want to hear bridged vs stereo and how this amp stacks up against my well-known Classe DR9s (also a pair). They are remarkably similar and grain-free. The Adcom GFA555mkII exhibits the kind of problems that plague Thiel users. The 3 amps provide a good window into what might be going on. BTW: John Siau (AHB designer) told me the following, based on my speaker schematics and his load analysis:CS7.2 Stereo or mono (bridged)CS5: Stereo onlyCS3.7: Stereo onlyCS3.6: Stereo onlyCS2.4: Stereo onlyCS2.2: Stereo or mono Believing him, I have nevertheless tried both modes on the 2.2 and 3.6. The 2.2 does fine either way (Its impedance is higher and more benign.) The 3.6 sounds a little sweeter on stereo. When bridged and pushed hard the amp clips with very effective momentary protection. Amidst the thunder the only evidence for me was seeing the red lights flicker. This amp is Class H power feeding a class A output. Very unusual distortion profile. Essentially clean until it's not, which shuts down instantly. Twoleftears: that single vs dual input scheme is high on my list, but I haven't implemented it yet. I'm wired for vertical bi-wire/bi-amps. |
Good question tomthiel re the Benchmark, I convinced myself a while ago that if I were to spend my audio $$$$s on a ss amp, it would likely be this one, but thus far I have not tired of tubes. My guess is very few Thiel owners have tried this amp, but for the life of me I don't know why, as on paper it seems a match made in heaven. Maybe it's a question of distribution? Maybe the classics (Bryston, Classe, Pass, Ayre, etc) are the no-risk choice of high current amps? And once again, reading some of these other threads reminds me of why I so much enjoy coming back to this one - the regular posters have a lot to offer newish users like me, and they are generally very open to others' experiences and philosophies. Rock on Thiel Users! |
Thosb & Tomthiel, I've read the "Class D and 2 ohm load" thread, and there's lots of interesting discussion - but quite a bit of rude argument as well. I don't know if I agree with the poster who claims that Class D amps are a bad match for low impedance speakers because they typically don't double the power output at 2 ohms compared to 4 ohms. There appear to be a number of Class D amps that can provide reasonable wattage at under 4 ohms, but I don't have enough personal experience with those amps to know if they really have the low-ohm current to power hard-to-drive speakers like several of the Thiels. What I do know, however, is that my PS Audio M700 monoblocks do a great job with my Thiel CS 2.2 speakers. I don't know, though, if the M700s would do as well with some of the Thiels that are harder to drive than the 2.2s. The M700s (Class D) took over for an Adcom 555-II (Class AB) I've had for many years, and the new amps really made the 2.2s come alive, improving both bass control and naturalness/openness across the spectrum. I don't have any experience with the Benchmark AHB-2, but I would assume that it would power the 2.2s well even if it might have more trouble with some of the Thiels that present lower impedance loads to the amp. |
Thosb - Wow, what a ride! The topic of amps driving Thiels is, of course, of great interest and concern to me. Jim did his thing for his reasons, and I disagreed (about impedance mostly), but he was the designer-engineer. The interacting variables are very real. My hope was that by developing our own in-house driver manufacturing we could circumvent some of the hard problems of magnetic gap electrodynamics, etc. that limited the overall system design. Thiel drivers did indeed become quite radical. But to my dismay, the system impedances fell rather than rose, which disappoints me as I re-assess these designs. I wish that Thiel speakers presented a minimum 4 ohm load! That didn't happen. The nearly magic work-around that a poster mentioned on that thread, is to add a second input for a separate amp for the 3 bass drivers. Most of the problem evaporates, but cost is incurred for 2 more amps. I find it interesting that in all that discussion and examples, that Benchmark AHB-2 didn't surface. My question about it on this thread also got no response. Is it invisible or somehow inappropriate? Absolute Sound rated it Class A. I find it exceptionally clean, uncolored, versatile and affordable. Am I missing something? |
btw, if you haven't read this thread and don't mind scanning through some atypical (even for audio forums) trolling bs to get to some good info, this is a good discussion centered on class d amps driving Thiels - I learned a lot! https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/what-class-d-amps-will-drive-a-2-ohm-load |